Author Topic: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.  (Read 27225 times)

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #350 on: October 11, 2017, 02:58:22 PM »
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.

The beverage lobby and the automobile lobby. Both of which rely on the same kinds of fallacious "slippery slope" arguments that the NRA does. Because, profits.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1907493,00.html

"Opponents of the MADD push for stricter laws warn that a federal interlock requirement would serve as a Trojan horse, opening the way for even more sophisticated interlock technology that would be required on every car sold in the U.S., according to Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, which lobbies on behalf of taverns and restaurants. "If you go to the ball game and happen to have a beer you wouldn't be able drive home," she says."

So are you OK with or not OK with having interlocks on all cars?

That wasn't the question you asked.

Fair enough.

So are you OK with or not OK with having interlocks on all cars?
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Wolfpack Mustacian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #351 on: October 11, 2017, 05:49:43 PM »
Hmm. There are regulations on alcohol. It is illegal to drink or purchase it before a certain age (21 in most states). You have to show your ID to purchase. Cannot give to children. Most places, cannot drink in public or at work. You cannot drink and drive, both cars and a number of vehicles, even bicycles. I'm not going into all the laws and regulations say if you were caught drinking and driving, even before getting into an accident. A 12 year old can be taken to a shooting range and shoot a machine gun, while a 15 year old cannot have a glass of wine with their family.
I think the main thing to remember, is that totally banning guns, as totally banning alcohol is not feasible. But it is entirely feasible to have enforced restrictions on the use of that item. I think perfect is the enemy of good in this situation. In the same way, less restrictions are on some drugs, while thers is an outright ban on other drugs which are harmful and have no medical benefit. In the same way some types of guns can be legal and restricted, while other types of weapons are banned and not allowed for consumer use.

Partgypsy, thanks for your response. You bring up several different situations, where alcohol is regulated, all of which were captured by my initial post on the comparison. The only thing I failed to mention was having an ID to verify age. However, they all can be captured by the three categories of age, public drunkenness, and drunk driving. On age, we're paralleled with guns at least partially. There are age restrictions for both alcohol and guns (although, as you mentioned, guns can be done with supervision  while younger). Still, I feel it is a rough comparison. For public drunkenness, you've already abused it, so that's different than a restriction before any wrong has been done. For drunk driving, the same. It's not causing the accident that's the root of the issue. The root is being drunk and driving (the wrong).

So overall, for alcohol, we have only three types of restrictions. One based on age - the only one without any probable cause, and the other two based on actually doing something wrong.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the regulations on alcohol and guns are completely different. If regulations on alcohol were the same as what are on guns or certainly if they are like the regulations proposed by almost every gun control proponent here, then there would be regulations like the following:

Why are you buying so much alcohol at once? Do you really need a bottle of gin, whiskey, and tequila? Why are you buying higher proof alcohol? No one has need for that except to get totally drunk, which is dangerous. These would be done before you have even done anything wrong. Just an "in general", you can't need more than one six pack at a time or the like.

Beyond this, if you were ever abusive to someone while drunk or were ever to drink and drive, forget a breathalyzer on a car. You would be restricted from drinking period. These are comparable requirements. Both preemptively targeting people who buy a lot or certain types or whatever and a total restriction given certain circumstances, but of course, alcohol restrictions are nothing like this.

This is more than comparable, because, after all, removing the ability to drive after drunk driving is great and all, but it would only remove roughly 10k of the deaths due to alcohol (again, ~85k). While this would be a big proportion if we were talking about gun deaths (about 1/3 of the total including suicides), in the scope of alcohol it still leaves ~75k deaths a year, still over twice what is caused by all gun deaths. And yet, none of these restrictions are ever bandied about.

My goal is to post here because this is a group of much more intelligent people than the average message board. My hope is to convey the other side of the gun control equation with this analogy.

I would request that others either poke holes in my comparison or hopefully develop empathy for the side of gun supporters.

Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol? (again, not the only example of a difference in how freedoms are pitted against safety but an apt analogy IMO) If not, I say that the arguments are inconsistent. Guns are an easy thing to demonize and yet the data and analogy, again IMO, show that guns are hardly an isolated risk. We all have to decide how we balance freedoms against safety. I'd personally rather be in a place with more rights and more risks than the reverse, but if people want some other balance on the continuum, that's fine. I'd just like consistency with other things or feedback as to how my analogy is flawed.
 
« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 06:00:04 PM by Wolfpack Mustacian »

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1841
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #352 on: October 11, 2017, 07:26:03 PM »
Just a random, but related thought - breathalyzer trigger locks.  My cousin was given a fine and probation for drunkenly firing a gun into the air.  A couple years later he accidently killed himself cleaning a firearm while drunk.  Such a device imposed on him after his first offense (maybe for the duration of his probation?) sounds perfectly reasonable and would have saved his life.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9491
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #353 on: October 11, 2017, 08:15:27 PM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?

100% OK with requiring a licence to buy booze that gets suspended after a DUI or drunken brawling.  That's a great idea.

In Canada it's already illegal to sell booze higher than 40%, so  . . . yeah, I'm totally OK with that too.

Banning buying lots of booze at once is maybe slightly tricky . . . I mean, purchasers for restaurants and bars would obviously need an exemption for this.  I can think of pretty common occasions (large parties, self-hosted weddings, bat-mizvahs, etc.) where buying a large amount of booze is pretty common/innocuous.  Given that you can mix a single drink with an over the counter antihistamine to get super wasted if you wanted to, I'm not entirely sure how effective this would be in preventing intoxication anyway . . . but I'm certainly open to hearing your reasoning on it.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1192
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #354 on: October 12, 2017, 07:15:56 AM »
Bringing this somewhat back to the OP...

http://deadline.com/2017/10/las-vegas-shooting-no-motive-gunman-shot-hotel-security-guard-first-1202185098/

the security guard was the first to get shot.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #355 on: October 12, 2017, 07:57:58 AM »
Bringing this somewhat back to the OP...

http://deadline.com/2017/10/las-vegas-shooting-no-motive-gunman-shot-hotel-security-guard-first-1202185098/

the security guard was the first to get shot.

Which raises more questions, since the working theory was that the security guard distracted Paddock by being in the hallway and then led to his suicide.  So there's no real explanation as to why he stopped and killed himself since it took the police an hour (or more?) to enter his room.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #356 on: October 12, 2017, 09:22:33 AM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #357 on: October 12, 2017, 09:37:07 AM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just out of curiosity, why are those conversations not happening?

GuitarStv has already posted his views on allowing regulation / breathalyzes in cars / etc regarding the potential for regulating and preventing drunk driving accidents (and I will admit his views are impressively consistent, and I respect his opinion). 

My presumption is that many here will admit they would not accept breathalyzers being put in all cars, some wound not accept 'black boxes' in cars that have government control and tracking (whether it be local - state - or federal level), and some might not even be accepting of government tracking (without the ability to shut off) cars.

While one can state they believe breathalyzers should be on all guns and it seems a 'reasonable' suggestion, installing breathalyzes on all cars seems outlandish and invasive.  I think Wolfpack makes some very valid points and I am very curious as to whether many in this thread will bother to answer the question:

Are you OK with having breathalyzers in all cars?  Why or why not?


My assumptions-

 ~ There are a similar number of alcohol related car deaths to gun deaths, especially if you exclude suicides.
 ~ There is a similarly small cost to installing breathalyzers as other regulations on guns proposed.
 ~ If the 'people dying in the streets' mentality is true regarding guns, and total gun deaths or deaths per 100,000 is trotted out so often, why are gun deaths important and car deaths not important?  The loss of life is similar enough that both should be equally important.

"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7016
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #358 on: October 12, 2017, 09:39:39 AM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
In Canada it's already illegal to sell booze higher than 40%, so  . . . yeah, I'm totally OK with that too.

Alcohol is a provincial area and you are in Ontario.  You can buy 94% in Quebec.  Great for punch.
https://www.saq.com/page/en/saqcom/alcohol/global-94-/12209012?selectedIndex=2&searchContextId=-100212113622839

Re cars and breathalyzers, it would help a lot for the repeat DUI offenders - so yes require it after the first offense.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2610
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #359 on: October 12, 2017, 09:49:08 AM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just out of curiosity, why are those conversations not happening?

GuitarStv has already posted his views on allowing regulation / breathalyzes in cars / etc regarding the potential for regulating and preventing drunk driving accidents (and I will admit his views are impressively consistent, and I respect his opinion). 

My presumption is that many here will admit they would not accept breathalyzers being put in all cars, some wound not accept 'black boxes' in cars that have government control and tracking (whether it be local - state - or federal level), and some might not even be accepting of government tracking (without the ability to shut off) cars.

While one can state they believe breathalyzers should be on all guns and it seems a 'reasonable' suggestion, installing breathalyzes on all cars seems outlandish and invasive.  I think Wolfpack makes some very valid points and I am very curious as to whether many in this thread will bother to answer the question:

Are you OK with having breathalyzers in all cars?  Why or why not?


My assumptions-

 ~ There are a similar number of alcohol related car deaths to gun deaths, especially if you exclude suicides.
 ~ There is a similarly small cost to installing breathalyzers as other regulations on guns proposed.
 ~ If the 'people dying in the streets' mentality is true regarding guns, and total gun deaths or deaths per 100,000 is trotted out so often, why are gun deaths important and car deaths not important?  The loss of life is similar enough that both should be equally important.

I'd be fine with it.

And like I said before, the reason these conversations are not happening is because of the beverage industry lobby and the automobile lobby. The lobbies control the conversations. Just as we see with the gun lobby and the NRA. When you see how much their propaganda has taken over the narrative on the right -- to the extent that their talking points come out of gun advocates' mouths like they're Stepford wives -- it's pretty clear why actual conversations don't have a chance to happen.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 10:12:09 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9491
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #360 on: October 12, 2017, 09:58:00 AM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
In Canada it's already illegal to sell booze higher than 40%, so  . . . yeah, I'm totally OK with that too.

Alcohol is a provincial area and you are in Ontario.  You can buy 94% in Quebec.  Great for punch.
https://www.saq.com/page/en/saqcom/alcohol/global-94-/12209012?selectedIndex=2&searchContextId=-100212113622839

Re cars and breathalyzers, it would help a lot for the repeat DUI offenders - so yes require it after the first offense.

Huh.  I stand corrected.  This must just be an Ontario thing.


Wait, is Quebec still part of Canada?  :P

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #361 on: October 12, 2017, 09:58:46 AM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
In Canada it's already illegal to sell booze higher than 40%, so  . . . yeah, I'm totally OK with that too.

Alcohol is a provincial area and you are in Ontario.  You can buy 94% in Quebec.  Great for punch.
https://www.saq.com/page/en/saqcom/alcohol/global-94-/12209012?selectedIndex=2&searchContextId=-100212113622839

Re cars and breathalyzers, it would help a lot for the repeat DUI offenders - so yes require it after the first offense.

But that is the suggestion or recommendation on guns.  There are several upthread openly emphasizing tracking devices and remote-controlled shut-offs for all guns.  And subsequently all gun owners.  You are suggesting only on those who have abused their privilege/rights.  After you have committed a crime of a certain level, you are barred from owning, procuring or possessing guns.  The equivalency you recommend is already in place! (Actually even more so because you can lose your right to a gun for non-violent crimes as well (see here:  http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html)). 

That, by nature, is a double standard.  You want breathalyzers only in cars of those who committed crimes already, but many advocate for similar restrictions on gun owners who have committed no crimes, ever.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #362 on: October 12, 2017, 10:00:35 AM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just out of curiosity, why are those conversations not happening?

GuitarStv has already posted his views on allowing regulation / breathalyzes in cars / etc regarding the potential for regulating and preventing drunk driving accidents (and I will admit his views are impressively consistent, and I respect his opinion). 

My presumption is that many here will admit they would not accept breathalyzers being put in all cars, some wound not accept 'black boxes' in cars that have government control and tracking (whether it be local - state - or federal level), and some might not even be accepting of government tracking (without the ability to shut off) cars.

While one can state they believe breathalyzers should be on all guns and it seems a 'reasonable' suggestion, installing breathalyzes on all cars seems outlandish and invasive.  I think Wolfpack makes some very valid points and I am very curious as to whether many in this thread will bother to answer the question:

Are you OK with having breathalyzers in all cars?  Why or why not?


My assumptions-

 ~ There are a similar number of alcohol related car deaths to gun deaths, especially if you exclude suicides.
 ~ There is a similarly small cost to installing breathalyzers as other regulations on guns proposed.
 ~ If the 'people dying in the streets' mentality is true regarding guns, and total gun deaths or deaths per 100,000 is trotted out so often, why are gun deaths important and car deaths not important?  The loss of life is similar enough that both should be equally important.



Perfectly fine with it. It's not like the data has to be uploaded to a server for the government to record. Yes, "friends" could still blow in it for you and let you drive home. Again, no regulation is perfect. But it would save a ton of people from being killed by drunk drivers, and the "cost" of freedom is 5 seconds of blowing. They could probably even come up with faster breathalyzer tech if people were that concerned. After reading stories of kids who were sleeping in the backseat, and getting decapitated by the seatbelt because a drunk driver hit them so hard, it's difficult not to dream of a world where drunk drivers are forced to walk home or call a ride.

For the record, I also would be ok with much tougher penalties for drunk drivers than we currently have.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7016
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #363 on: October 12, 2017, 02:35:49 PM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
In Canada it's already illegal to sell booze higher than 40%, so  . . . yeah, I'm totally OK with that too.

Alcohol is a provincial area and you are in Ontario.  You can buy 94% in Quebec.  Great for punch.
https://www.saq.com/page/en/saqcom/alcohol/global-94-/12209012?selectedIndex=2&searchContextId=-100212113622839

Re cars and breathalyzers, it would help a lot for the repeat DUI offenders - so yes require it after the first offense.

But that is the suggestion or recommendation on guns.  There are several upthread openly emphasizing tracking devices and remote-controlled shut-offs for all guns.  And subsequently all gun owners.  You are suggesting only on those who have abused their privilege/rights.  After you have committed a crime of a certain level, you are barred from owning, procuring or possessing guns.  The equivalency you recommend is already in place! (Actually even more so because you can lose your right to a gun for non-violent crimes as well (see here:  http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html)). 

That, by nature, is a double standard.  You want breathalyzers only in cars of those who committed crimes already, but many advocate for similar restrictions on gun owners who have committed no crimes, ever.

Are you confusing me with GuitarStv? 

Actually I have no problem with having a "double standard", because it is not a double standard.  The main function of motor vehicles is transportation, so licensing of drivers and vehicles fulfills the needs to assure basic competency in public.  Only a small % of drivers will be driving on their own private land, and most of the vehicles they are driving will be farm vehicles or ATVs, so different requirements. I still want a licensed driver when that big tractor or combine is on a public road.  Only when drivers abuse it (reckless driving of any sort, including DUI) do we need to go further.

The primary function of firearms is to pt a potentially deadly projectile through something - target, animal, human, the design does not change.  So the primary assurance of competency also needs to be different.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #364 on: October 12, 2017, 03:08:47 PM »

Re cars and breathalyzers, it would help a lot for the repeat DUI offenders - so yes require it after the first offense.

But that is the suggestion or recommendation on guns.  There are several upthread openly emphasizing tracking devices and remote-controlled shut-offs for all guns.  And subsequently all gun owners.  You are suggesting only on those who have abused their privilege/rights.  After you have committed a crime of a certain level, you are barred from owning, procuring or possessing guns.  The equivalency you recommend is already in place! (Actually even more so because you can lose your right to a gun for non-violent crimes as well (see here:  http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html)). 

That, by nature, is a double standard.  You want breathalyzers only in cars of those who committed crimes already, but many advocate for similar restrictions on gun owners who have committed no crimes, ever.

Are you confusing me with GuitarStv?

Actually I have no problem with having a "double standard", because it is not a double standard.  The main function of motor vehicles is transportation, so licensing of drivers and vehicles fulfills the needs to assure basic competency in public.  Only a small % of drivers will be driving on their own private land, and most of the vehicles they are driving will be farm vehicles or ATVs, so different requirements. I still want a licensed driver when that big tractor or combine is on a public road.  Only when drivers abuse it (reckless driving of any sort, including DUI) do we need to go further.

The primary function of firearms is to pt a potentially deadly projectile through something - target, animal, human, the design does not change.  So the primary assurance of competency also needs to be different.

I wasn't confusing you, just responding to your statement regarding cars and breathalyzers.

The specific question is- are you OK with breathalyzers on all cars?

There are a similar number of deaths from drunk driving and guns, therefore, those in this thread disturbed by the number of deaths from guns should be equally disturbed by drunk driving- and willing to make the same level of regulation or compromise on guns as cars.  The primary example being installing breathalyzers on all cars.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2658
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #365 on: October 13, 2017, 03:54:06 AM »
Yes, I'd be happy with the breathalyser in all cars.  Hopefully in the future one can be made to detect unsafe levels of prescription and illegal drugs as well as alcohol.

Speed limiters should also be a thing.  They are on all lorries in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be on cars too.

Although I suspect that self-driving cars (or at least ones with collision avoidance) will start solving many accident issues within the next few years.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #366 on: October 13, 2017, 06:55:26 AM »
Yes, I'd be happy with the breathalyser in all cars.  Hopefully in the future one can be made to detect unsafe levels of prescription and illegal drugs as well as alcohol.

Speed limiters should also be a thing.  They are on all lorries in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be on cars too.

Although I suspect that self-driving cars (or at least ones with collision avoidance) will start solving many accident issues within the next few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

Driving has actually gotten a lot safer in the U.S. as technology has advanced, crackdown on DUIs & distracted driving, regulation of airbags, seatbelts, etc.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #367 on: October 13, 2017, 09:50:49 AM »
I 100% agree that we need much tougher penalties for drunk drivers - I'd be happy if they were never allowed to drive again.

Regarding breathalyzers in cars, I'd be perfectly happy to have them in every car, so that your car cannot start if you're drunk.  The device doesn't have to be connected to a network or database or anything, it can be closed circuit and local to the car.  Drunk driving is a huge problem that is not getting enough attention in this country, because people view their right to drive as sacred - though of course not quite as much as the right to own a gun :)  I'd rate getting drunk drivers off the roads as much more important than gun control reform, frankly, but as others have mentioned it's very difficult to get it passed due to lobbyists.  Car deaths are just as important as gun deaths, but harder to fix, because the vast majority of car deaths are accidental, whereas a large percentage of gun deaths are intentional, even more so if we include suicides.

Me too. A person who can't be responsible with a car by at least being sober ought to lose their privilege to drive. Include in that a detection method for pot and other kinds of drugs. Repeat offenders get a system attached wirelessly to a network that logs their attempts to drive when they clearly aren't able i.e. you tried to drive drunk. Extend their sentence. Not necessarily eager for them to go to jail if they haven't hurt anyone but I am eager for them to be very regulated until they can get their life in order. If they hurt other people with their car while impaired then throw the book at 'em.

Want to drive after repeatedly driving drunk? You get to walk or ride a bicycle (ebike okay) and later a scooter. And then a heavily speed limited vehicle with a tiny engine (35 mph tops?).
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 09:53:03 AM by Just Joe »

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #368 on: October 13, 2017, 10:45:41 AM »
Yes, I'd be happy with the breathalyser in all cars.  Hopefully in the future one can be made to detect unsafe levels of prescription and illegal drugs as well as alcohol.

Speed limiters should also be a thing.  They are on all lorries in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be on cars too.

Although I suspect that self-driving cars (or at least ones with collision avoidance) will start solving many accident issues within the next few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

Driving has actually gotten a lot safer in the U.S. as technology has advanced, crackdown on DUIs & distracted driving, regulation of airbags, seatbelts, etc.

The sort of regulations and technology updates that are very upsetting to gun people.  I guess it's something I'll never understand.  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9491
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #369 on: October 13, 2017, 10:48:24 AM »
Yes, I'd be happy with the breathalyser in all cars.  Hopefully in the future one can be made to detect unsafe levels of prescription and illegal drugs as well as alcohol.

Speed limiters should also be a thing.  They are on all lorries in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be on cars too.

Although I suspect that self-driving cars (or at least ones with collision avoidance) will start solving many accident issues within the next few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

Driving has actually gotten a lot safer in the U.S. as technology has advanced, crackdown on DUIs & distracted driving, regulation of airbags, seatbelts, etc.

The sort of regulations and technology updates that are very upsetting to gun people.  I guess it's something I'll never understand.  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?

Because the last thing you want in a well regulated militia is any information.  Or regulation.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2610
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #370 on: October 13, 2017, 10:54:02 AM »
Yes, I'd be happy with the breathalyser in all cars.  Hopefully in the future one can be made to detect unsafe levels of prescription and illegal drugs as well as alcohol.

Speed limiters should also be a thing.  They are on all lorries in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be on cars too.

Although I suspect that self-driving cars (or at least ones with collision avoidance) will start solving many accident issues within the next few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

Driving has actually gotten a lot safer in the U.S. as technology has advanced, crackdown on DUIs & distracted driving, regulation of airbags, seatbelts, etc.

The sort of regulations and technology updates that are very upsetting to gun people.  I guess it's something I'll never understand.  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?

Because political propaganda from the right and from the gun lobby has created the narrative they believe: voter registration is meant to keep "other" people (dog whistle: groups who tend to vote Democratic) from electing people they don't like and "stealing" elections, even though there's no evidence of any real voter fraud (and indeed, the voter fraud that exists is of a completely different type, but those same people don't care about that at all because the right wants them focused on the "others" since it keeps people in fear). And gun registration is mean to keep "good people" (they themselves) from exercising their rights.

Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7016
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #371 on: October 13, 2017, 11:25:52 AM »

The specific question is- are you OK with breathalyzers on all cars?

There are a similar number of deaths from drunk driving and guns, therefore, those in this thread disturbed by the number of deaths from guns should be equally disturbed by drunk driving- and willing to make the same level of regulation or compromise on guns as cars.  The primary example being installing breathalyzers on all cars.

Cars keep adding safety features - turn signals, windshield defrosters, rear window defrosters, wipers, etc.  All cars have seat belts.  They didn't when I was a kid.  All cars now have air bags.  They didn't when I was a kid.  In both cases they showed up first in high end cars and then became standard.  If all cars had to have breathalyzers the incentive to improve the technology and lower the price would be there.

I am too lazy today to look it up, but I would guess in Canada deaths due to traffic accidents are far higher than deaths due to fire arms.  But given that it would be expensive if only Canada had this (i.e. the US is so much larger a market force) I doubt we will see it any time soon.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1482
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #372 on: October 13, 2017, 11:49:21 AM »
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini MM's...
God, Family, Country. Everything else is details.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #373 on: October 13, 2017, 12:57:09 PM »
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

The Declaration of Independence says nothing of property. It actually states "pursuit of happiness." Not good when you butcher the Declaration of Independence. 

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #374 on: October 13, 2017, 01:11:36 PM »
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

The Declaration of Independence says nothing of property. It actually states "pursuit of happiness." Not good when you butcher the Declaration of Independence.

I see nowhere that he claimed to be quoting the DoI?...

And the original quote (from which the DoI quoted) was in fact Life, Liberty and Property in John Locke's letter preceding the declaration.  It was also restated as "Life, Liberty and Property" in the US Constitution.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #375 on: October 13, 2017, 01:26:28 PM »
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks! 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9491
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #376 on: October 13, 2017, 01:45:04 PM »
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html


Sounds great in theory.  Very chest thumping, cockles of the heart warming, feel-good talk.  It seems to hit some obstacles when you introduce it to real life though because we exist in a very interconnected society.  The actions of one don't happen in a vacuum, they impact us all.

For example, how do you handle the obvious paradoxes?  Take cars for example.  Cars produce air pollution.  Air pollution that kills other people (lots of other people http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829)!  Do you infringe upon the right to property and liberty by banning cars, or do you infringe upon the right to life by allowing them to be driven?

How do you handle the obvious conflicts?  I want to blast loud music at night, you want to sleep.  My liberty to blast music conflicts with your liberty to sleep comfortably.  They cannot coexist.

Life, liberty, property often exist in conflict with one another.  Where do you assign priority in these cases . . . and why?  Since you have to violate some rights to preserve others, how do you avoid being (in your own words) "evil"?



I feel like your group has not read the definition of what a pragmatist actually is . . . they're following a philosophy that only works in the world of pure ideals.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 02:46:14 PM by GuitarStv »

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #377 on: October 13, 2017, 01:52:58 PM »
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.


Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #378 on: October 13, 2017, 01:57:06 PM »
For example, how do you handle the obvious paradoxes?  Take cars for example.  Cars produce air pollution.  Air pollution that kills other people (lots of other people http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829)!  Do you infringe upon the right to property and liberty by banning cars, or do you infringe upon the right to life by allowing them to be driven?
Simple. You find 1 scientist who disagrees with all the others and say, "Death by air pollution isn't proven, the science is far from settled"

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #379 on: October 13, 2017, 01:57:46 PM »
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Wait a second... you aren't going sovereign individual are you?

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #380 on: October 13, 2017, 01:59:01 PM »
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #381 on: October 13, 2017, 02:05:53 PM »
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Read. You cannot simultaneously claim constitutional democracy is a great system and everyone should be happy with it and then whine like the Left in the US whines today about how democracy is under attack and only moments away from failing due to corporations/Trump/global warming/Martians.

These are not consistent positions.

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #382 on: October 13, 2017, 02:27:27 PM »
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Read. You cannot simultaneously claim constitutional democracy is a great system and everyone should be happy with it and then whine like the Left in the US whines today about how democracy is under attack and only moments away from failing due to corporations/Trump/global warming/Martians.

These are not consistent positions.

Uh-I think that our constitutional democracy does indeed allow me (and others!) to complain about whatever we want to. And assemble about it, too. This ain't North Korea.  And I don't really see how preferring democracy to anarchy means any of whatever the hell that is, either. (Martians?  You guys need to get new news sources on "the left."). Yeah-I get to complain about Trump.  He sucks and, in fact, if he triggers a nuclear war with North Korea, our democracy could really be in danger.  See how that works?  I love constitutional democracy. I don't always agree with the laws and what the judicial branch decides, and I can work to better the system so it more closely adheres to its founding documents.  And that's not whining, btw.  Unless whatever the hell the right was doing for the last 8 years was also whining. (OBUMMER HATES THE CONSTITUTION.  SHARIA!!!1!!)

Just because democracy is great doesn't mean it's not under pressures, from within and without.  Its greatness does not mean invulnerability.   One of things that weakens it: corruption.  Another: authoritarianism.  Gosh-I wonder why I'm worried about those things.  Now, you might worry about other things.  Like, how if you can't have 56 guns around you at all times, it's a fast slide into the gulag. 


 

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #383 on: October 13, 2017, 02:37:54 PM »
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Read. You cannot simultaneously claim constitutional democracy is a great system and everyone should be happy with it and then whine like the Left in the US whines today about how democracy is under attack and only moments away from failing due to corporations/Trump/global warming/Martians.

These are not consistent positions.
If I'm missing something here somebody please let me know but what I read is that Wexler doesn't feel disenfranchised based on the fact that he can't have personal nuclear weapons. Clearly anyone who isn't insane would agree with that statement in a standalone way.

You are ignoring what he said to turn this into yet another argument about liberals. Why?

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #384 on: October 13, 2017, 02:41:48 PM »
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Read. You cannot simultaneously claim constitutional democracy is a great system and everyone should be happy with it and then whine like the Left in the US whines today about how democracy is under attack and only moments away from failing due to corporations/Trump/global warming/Martians.

These are not consistent positions.
You said this. No one else said it, only you.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #385 on: October 13, 2017, 02:46:09 PM »
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

The Declaration of Independence says nothing of property. It actually states "pursuit of happiness." Not good when you butcher the Declaration of Independence.

I see nowhere that he claimed to be quoting the DoI?...

And the original quote (from which the DoI quoted) was in fact Life, Liberty and Property in John Locke's letter preceding the declaration.  It was also restated as "Life, Liberty and Property" in the US Constitution.

The 5th amendment pertains to due process, not "god" and no mention of unalienable rights. I know what John Locke's original statements were. But statements /= actual rights. 

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #386 on: October 13, 2017, 02:56:08 PM »
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Read. You cannot simultaneously claim constitutional democracy is a great system and everyone should be happy with it and then whine like the Left in the US whines today about how democracy is under attack and only moments away from failing due to corporations/Trump/global warming/Martians.

These are not consistent positions.
If I'm missing something here somebody please let me know but what I read is that Wexler doesn't feel disenfranchised based on the fact that he can't have personal nuclear weapons. Clearly anyone who isn't insane would agree with that statement in a standalone way.

You are ignoring what he said to turn this into yet another argument about liberals. Why?
The statement wasn't a stand alone statement, it was issued with an entire paragraph along with it, with the obvious implication that constitutional democracy is totally fine as is and enough to justify our freedoms.

His additional post totally lines up with that.

This is a statement in support of the Empire:
Quote
We have an emperor and he's been there for centuries. I do not feel unsafe just because I do not have nuclear weapons. I trust the imperial throne
It would be quite odd to state this in as the Vandals sacked Rome for the umpteenth time in 455. It obviously implies you are safe, and everything is hunky dory. This isn't a logic class, we can read between the lines.

But, yeah, if I thought Trump was a dictator about to unleash his Nazi death cults at the behest of his Goldman Sachs masters, you're goddam right I would want someone on my side to have some nukes. Maybe I'd want them held by Governor Rauner, but I certainly wouldn't trust going into a fight with the US government unarmed. This is the same reason I want the US itself to have nuclear weapons, because I sure as hell do not trust Vladimir Putin having the world's sole world-ending nuclear arsenal.



Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #387 on: October 13, 2017, 03:22:38 PM »
Wait-what does this have to do with an emperor? I didn't say anything about that.  Acroy argued that we have inalienable personal property rights. I disagreed, and said that not having a personal nukes didn't unduly infringe my personal property rights.  If a belief system that allows unfettered access to backyard nukes is anarchy, sign me up for constitutional democracy.  Then, you took my preference for constitutional democracy over anarchy as license to decide that I don't get to criticize Trump or the government in any way. That's...not how any of this works. And then you said some stuff about Martians that I guess meant that liberals believe kooky stuff (not me-I'm the no yoga but science is real kind of liberal, and I'm pretty sure that alien conspiracy theories are bipartisan).  And then you made a truly bizarre leap to the fact that I'm a blind sheep who follows the Empire?  What?  I kind of got lost. 

The fact that I like one kind of established government does not mean I like or endorse all kinds of governments or even all actions by my preferred government.  And, I don't want my fellow citizens to have nukes.  That's crazy, dude. It's bad enough that Donald Trump has access to them.

But, to bring it back: we have restrictions on gun rights.  They are already there.  You can't have a nuke in the US-it's an interpretation of the 2nd that I feel would stand up in court, though I don't think it's been challenged.  Maybe I shouldn't have pointed that out to the gun people on this forum, because now they are going to be super mad that someone is treading on them and not letting them have a nuke.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #388 on: October 13, 2017, 03:30:20 PM »
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Read. You cannot simultaneously claim constitutional democracy is a great system and everyone should be happy with it and then whine like the Left in the US whines today about how democracy is under attack and only moments away from failing due to corporations/Trump/global warming/Martians.

These are not consistent positions.
If I'm missing something here somebody please let me know but what I read is that Wexler doesn't feel disenfranchised based on the fact that he can't have personal nuclear weapons. Clearly anyone who isn't insane would agree with that statement in a standalone way.

You are ignoring what he said to turn this into yet another argument about liberals. Why?
The statement wasn't a stand alone statement, it was issued with an entire paragraph along with it, with the obvious implication that constitutional democracy is totally fine as is and enough to justify our freedoms.

His additional post totally lines up with that.

This is a statement in support of the Empire:
Quote
We have an emperor and he's been there for centuries. I do not feel unsafe just because I do not have nuclear weapons. I trust the imperial throne
It would be quite odd to state this in as the Vandals sacked Rome for the umpteenth time in 455. It obviously implies you are safe, and everything is hunky dory. This isn't a logic class, we can read between the lines.

But, yeah, if I thought Trump was a dictator about to unleash his Nazi death cults at the behest of his Goldman Sachs masters, you're goddam right I would want someone on my side to have some nukes. Maybe I'd want them held by Governor Rauner, but I certainly wouldn't trust going into a fight with the US government unarmed. This is the same reason I want the US itself to have nuclear weapons, because I sure as hell do not trust Vladimir Putin having the world's sole world-ending nuclear arsenal.
Yes it was.

Nope :)

ETA: And what Wexler said. Mine is th TL;DR version
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 03:33:04 PM by Dabnasty »

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #389 on: October 13, 2017, 03:32:41 PM »
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

The Declaration of Independence says nothing of property. It actually states "pursuit of happiness." Not good when you butcher the Declaration of Independence.

I see nowhere that he claimed to be quoting the DoI?...

And the original quote (from which the DoI quoted) was in fact Life, Liberty and Property in John Locke's letter preceding the declaration.  It was also restated as "Life, Liberty and Property" in the US Constitution.

The 5th amendment pertains to due process, not "god" and no mention of unalienable rights. I know what John Locke's original statements were. But statements /= actual rights.

If you feel there are no such thing an inalienable rights, more power to you, but know that such a view is entirely inconsistent with the foundational core of our government.

I was just pointing out that he did not claim to be quoting the Declaration and you made that assertion, attempting to de-legitimatize his view by asserting he misquoted something he never even claimed to quote.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 756
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #390 on: October 13, 2017, 09:43:06 PM »
Yes, I'd be happy with the breathalyser in all cars.  Hopefully in the future one can be made to detect unsafe levels of prescription and illegal drugs as well as alcohol.

Speed limiters should also be a thing.  They are on all lorries in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be on cars too.

Although I suspect that self-driving cars (or at least ones with collision avoidance) will start solving many accident issues within the next few years.


I hope you're right about that last part.  High quality self driving cars should be able to get drunks home without them needing to touch the wheel.  Shit, I'd love it, the 4 hour drive for holiday visits would be a lot easier if I spent the whole time napping, or playing cards with friends, or whatever.


Guns are much harder for a lot of reasons.  The right to bear arms is a part of the US Constitution, which is very hard to change.  Furthermore, any changes would take centuries to ripple through the entire gun stock since many firearms can last hundreds of years with basic safe storage techniques.  What's left is preventing high risk people from committing murders or mass murders.  This won't be a realistic solution until people voluntarily submit for assistance.. and I don't see that happening as long as the huge stigma exists, rights will likely be taken away immediately, and the person is subject to financial ruin.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 09:47:32 PM by Hotstreak »

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #391 on: October 16, 2017, 05:59:25 AM »

If you feel there are no such thing an inalienable rights, more power to you, but know that such a view is entirely inconsistent with the foundational core of our government.

I only commented on the quote, not my feeling in any such rights. Stick to the point. Leaps of straw-man fallacies only muddy the conversation.

Quote
I was just pointing out that he did not claim to be quoting the Declaration and you made that assertion, attempting to de-legitimatize his view by asserting he misquoted something he never even claimed to quote.

How do you know what/who he was quoting? You don't and admittedly neither do I. Which is why I pointed out actual words written into documents that pertain to the founding of our nation don't match his. And quoting a person means jack squat. So claiming that we have some sort of inalienable right, which is not actually written in any documents, is incorrect.

But by all means if you feel that we have inalienable right to property, stake claim to a slave and see how that goes for you. Even the founders, despite owning slaves themselves, knew "personal property" ownership (ie. slave trade) would likely harm their revolutionary movement.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #392 on: October 16, 2017, 07:24:17 AM »
Wait-what does this have to do with an emperor? I didn't say anything about that.  Acroy argued that we have inalienable personal property rights. I disagreed, and said that not having a personal nukes didn't unduly infringe my personal property rights.  If a belief system that allows unfettered access to backyard nukes is anarchy, sign me up for constitutional democracy.  Then, you took my preference for constitutional democracy over anarchy as license to decide that I don't get to criticize Trump or the government in any way. That's...not how any of this works. And then you said some stuff about Martians that I guess meant that liberals believe kooky stuff (not me-I'm the no yoga but science is real kind of liberal, and I'm pretty sure that alien conspiracy theories are bipartisan).  And then you made a truly bizarre leap to the fact that I'm a blind sheep who follows the Empire?  What?  I kind of got lost. 

The fact that I like one kind of established government does not mean I like or endorse all kinds of governments or even all actions by my preferred government.  And, I don't want my fellow citizens to have nukes.  That's crazy, dude. It's bad enough that Donald Trump has access to them.

But, to bring it back: we have restrictions on gun rights.  They are already there.  You can't have a nuke in the US-it's an interpretation of the 2nd that I feel would stand up in court, though I don't think it's been challenged.  Maybe I shouldn't have pointed that out to the gun people on this forum, because now they are going to be super mad that someone is treading on them and not letting them have a nuke.
Who said anything that you can't criticize a government? If you think everything is going to go to hell in a handbasket because GM controls the Supreme Court, you should be angling to loosen up gun laws, not trusting Goldman Sachs with a monopoly on violence.

This isn't hard. If you say I should trust my government enough to give up weapons, you lose all credibility in saying corporations have taken over our government/the government is fascist/etc. It doesn't matter whether you even think the militia has an honest ability to actually overthrow a tyrannical government, it doesn't make sense to demand other people entirely disarm themselves in the presence of a corrupt government.

I am not saying you love the Roman Emperor. Though why shouldn't you? We had the empire for centuries, it's certainly not going anywhere. Pay no mind to Alaric and his Gothic horde coming over the border, Rome has stood for nearly a millennium! :)


Quote
But by all means if you feel that we have inalienable right to property, stake claim to a slave and see how that goes for you. Even the founders, despite owning slaves themselves, knew "personal property" ownership (ie. slave trade) would likely harm their revolutionary movement.
The US revolution is a product of the Enlightenment and the right to property is an essential part. The US as a whole has moved way past those original  Enlightenment thinkers (it was 2 centuries ago that it had its hey-day), but Classical Liberals (IE libertarians) don't think the successor movements offer anything.

Slavery was not a part of the Enlightenment movement. Locke was specifically against it, and it's why slavery was so contentious in the US even at our founding. Slavery was a product of circumstance in the New World. Colonies wanted a slave system. Easy labor. Cheap labor. So the colonies amped up their slave codes in the 17th and 18th centuries to create a permanent labor class. It's regrettable, but it's not part of the Enlightenment and it's not part of the national DNA the way that gun ownership has been.

Obviously, the Constitution provides revocation of any right, including rights to free speech, property, whatever. But it wouldn't be hard to say that the US had undergone a major shift if it repealed any of these, and isn't the same nation anymore.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #393 on: October 16, 2017, 08:08:14 AM »
Wait-what does this have to do with an emperor? I didn't say anything about that.  Acroy argued that we have inalienable personal property rights. I disagreed, and said that not having a personal nukes didn't unduly infringe my personal property rights.  If a belief system that allows unfettered access to backyard nukes is anarchy, sign me up for constitutional democracy.  Then, you took my preference for constitutional democracy over anarchy as license to decide that I don't get to criticize Trump or the government in any way. That's...not how any of this works. And then you said some stuff about Martians that I guess meant that liberals believe kooky stuff (not me-I'm the no yoga but science is real kind of liberal, and I'm pretty sure that alien conspiracy theories are bipartisan).  And then you made a truly bizarre leap to the fact that I'm a blind sheep who follows the Empire?  What?  I kind of got lost. 

The fact that I like one kind of established government does not mean I like or endorse all kinds of governments or even all actions by my preferred government.  And, I don't want my fellow citizens to have nukes.  That's crazy, dude. It's bad enough that Donald Trump has access to them.

But, to bring it back: we have restrictions on gun rights.  They are already there.  You can't have a nuke in the US-it's an interpretation of the 2nd that I feel would stand up in court, though I don't think it's been challenged.  Maybe I shouldn't have pointed that out to the gun people on this forum, because now they are going to be super mad that someone is treading on them and not letting them have a nuke.
Who said anything that you can't criticize a government? If you think everything is going to go to hell in a handbasket because GM controls the Supreme Court, you should be angling to loosen up gun laws, not trusting Goldman Sachs with a monopoly on violence.

This isn't hard. If you say I should trust my government enough to give up weapons, you lose all credibility in saying corporations have taken over our government/the government is fascist/etc. It doesn't matter whether you even think the militia has an honest ability to actually overthrow a tyrannical government, it doesn't make sense to demand other people entirely disarm themselves in the presence of a corrupt government.

I am not saying you love the Roman Emperor. Though why shouldn't you? We had the empire for centuries, it's certainly not going anywhere. Pay no mind to Alaric and his Gothic horde coming over the border, Rome has stood for nearly a millennium! :)
This If/Then statement doesn't make any sense to me. If one is for gun control then they aren't allowed to complain about the government? If this isn't what you meant, please clarify.

Not to mention there's no reason it has to be one extreme or the other. As far as I can tell you've equated "I can't defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard" to "Give up weapons".

And then some sarcastic remarks which I assume are suggesting that people are too complacent with the stability of our nation? I think you're having a conversation with your own assumptions at this point.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #394 on: October 16, 2017, 08:16:09 AM »
The US revolution is a product of the Enlightenment and the right to property is an essential part.

Sure, I'm on board with that. But again, property itself constituted slaves which in and of itself contradicted the "all men are created equal" part as well. Jefferson and others, again while slave owners themselves, understood that including the slave trade in any documents would likely hinder their goal. It's unknown where "pursuit of happiness" actually originated from.

However, the right to own a gun doesn't fall under any unalienable rights. It falls under the 2nd amendment, which has restrictions, as it should. As others have pointed out, it's not ok for folks to own nukes and other WMDs.

This is all with the accepted understanding that we have some sort of "god given rights" which I don't believe to be true at all. But that has nothing to do with this topic and I am not opening that can of worms.

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #395 on: October 16, 2017, 09:18:11 AM »
Wait-what does this have to do with an emperor? I didn't say anything about that.  Acroy argued that we have inalienable personal property rights. I disagreed, and said that not having a personal nukes didn't unduly infringe my personal property rights.  If a belief system that allows unfettered access to backyard nukes is anarchy, sign me up for constitutional democracy.  Then, you took my preference for constitutional democracy over anarchy as license to decide that I don't get to criticize Trump or the government in any way. That's...not how any of this works. And then you said some stuff about Martians that I guess meant that liberals believe kooky stuff (not me-I'm the no yoga but science is real kind of liberal, and I'm pretty sure that alien conspiracy theories are bipartisan).  And then you made a truly bizarre leap to the fact that I'm a blind sheep who follows the Empire?  What?  I kind of got lost. 

The fact that I like one kind of established government does not mean I like or endorse all kinds of governments or even all actions by my preferred government.  And, I don't want my fellow citizens to have nukes.  That's crazy, dude. It's bad enough that Donald Trump has access to them.

But, to bring it back: we have restrictions on gun rights.  They are already there.  You can't have a nuke in the US-it's an interpretation of the 2nd that I feel would stand up in court, though I don't think it's been challenged.  Maybe I shouldn't have pointed that out to the gun people on this forum, because now they are going to be super mad that someone is treading on them and not letting them have a nuke.
Who said anything that you can't criticize a government? If you think everything is going to go to hell in a handbasket because GM controls the Supreme Court, you should be angling to loosen up gun laws, not trusting Goldman Sachs with a monopoly on violence.

This isn't hard. If you say I should trust my government enough to give up weapons, you lose all credibility in saying corporations have taken over our government/the government is fascist/etc. It doesn't matter whether you even think the militia has an honest ability to actually overthrow a tyrannical government, it doesn't make sense to demand other people entirely disarm themselves in the presence of a corrupt government.

I am not saying you love the Roman Emperor. Though why shouldn't you? We had the empire for centuries, it's certainly not going anywhere. Pay no mind to Alaric and his Gothic horde coming over the border, Rome has stood for nearly a millennium! :)
This If/Then statement doesn't make any sense to me. If one is for gun control then they aren't allowed to complain about the government? If this isn't what you meant, please clarify.

Not to mention there's no reason it has to be one extreme or the other. As far as I can tell you've equated "I can't defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard" to "Give up weapons".

And then some sarcastic remarks which I assume are suggesting that people are too complacent with the stability of our nation? I think you're having a conversation with your own assumptions at this point.

That's my impression as well.  I think that the assumptions here are along the lines of:  0.1=1,000,000 because both are numbers.  There are a lot of assumptions being made about people thinking the government is fascist, believing x means relinquishing all right to having opinions about y, GM, Martians, empire, Romans that no one brought up but that somehow we are responsible for rebutting.

I really do want someone on the other side to tell me why keeping track of voters is OK but keeping track of guns isn't.  Acroy said it's because of a larger set of fundamental rights beyond the constitution involving property rights (implying that guns are property, but not a special kind of property), but that doesn't explain why people are OK with the government keeping track of many kinds of property (houses, cars), just not guns.

Looking at the constitution, guns are set forth as an explicit right, but the Supreme Court also has set aside voting as an explicit right. And there's nothing in the constitution that says we can't figure out who owns guns, just like we know who votes.  That's right! The government not only keeps track of your registration, but it also keeps track of if and when you vote.  I'd say that keeping a gun owner list would seem to support the well-regulated militia.  How are you going to regulate it well if you don't know who to call on?  Keeping a list (like voting!) doesn't infringe on the right to own them.

Now if you believe that 0.1 is 1,000,000, then keeping a list of gun registrations is the equivalent of grabbing all guns.  I don't believe that, but I'm guessing that is the opposing argument.  But I am not sure it's an argument that is supported by the constitution.  And, if so, then why aren't people equally angry about voter registration databases?

Wolfpack Mustacian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #396 on: October 16, 2017, 10:13:08 PM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just curious about your response here. Again, we probably have some significant philosophical differences on things, but I appreciate your consistency. You comment on things in regards to evaluating if something is effectively reducing deaths in a very practical/numbers based perspective. I am curious where this viewpoint takes you. In general, my perspective is very much biased towards feeling that the government restricting people's freedoms to do something that impacts no one but themselves should be a last resort situation, and I don't feel that it is worth it in many cases (i.e. a person restricted in buying guns who hasn't hurt someone is having their freedoms restricted before they have done something wrong). Not trying to get into the specifics of the gun control discussion here, but I'm curious what you think, since it appears that you see things differently. You mention restricting things if they are successful at preventing deaths on a significant scale. I guess my question is, how do you draw the line on restricting freedoms in general. The cliche argument is that we could live in a 1984 environment with no privacy where crime would be significantly reduced. It's a straw man, of course, but it's not to say that it wouldn't be true. If the government completely monitored everything, general crime would almost certainly go down, but almost everyone would agree the trade-off wouldn't be worth it. Again, for me, it's a fairly easy distinction - I almost always default to more freedom even if the trade-off is more risks. What would you say would be how you look at the situation? How do you determine if the freedom is worth the risks, even if the risks are significant? Are the freedoms ever worth the risks (I'm assuming the answer to this is yes at least in some situations)?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2658
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #397 on: October 17, 2017, 02:09:10 AM »
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just curious about your response here. Again, we probably have some significant philosophical differences on things, but I appreciate your consistency. You comment on things in regards to evaluating if something is effectively reducing deaths in a very practical/numbers based perspective. I am curious where this viewpoint takes you. In general, my perspective is very much biased towards feeling that the government restricting people's freedoms to do something that impacts no one but themselves should be a last resort situation, and I don't feel that it is worth it in many cases (i.e. a person restricted in buying guns who hasn't hurt someone is having their freedoms restricted before they have done something wrong). Not trying to get into the specifics of the gun control discussion here, but I'm curious what you think, since it appears that you see things differently. You mention restricting things if they are successful at preventing deaths on a significant scale. I guess my question is, how do you draw the line on restricting freedoms in general. The cliche argument is that we could live in a 1984 environment with no privacy where crime would be significantly reduced. It's a straw man, of course, but it's not to say that it wouldn't be true. If the government completely monitored everything, general crime would almost certainly go down, but almost everyone would agree the trade-off wouldn't be worth it. Again, for me, it's a fairly easy distinction - I almost always default to more freedom even if the trade-off is more risks. What would you say would be how you look at the situation? How do you determine if the freedom is worth the risks, even if the risks are significant? Are the freedoms ever worth the risks (I'm assuming the answer to this is yes at least in some situations)?

You seem to be making the assumption that having a gun = freedom.  I don't believe not having a gun makes me less free, in fact not having a gun frees me from all sorts of things, such as the expense, the need to keep it safe, and the worry that it would be used against me, would be involved in an accident or would be used to commit suicide. 

Would the right to have a gun make me more free?  I don't believe that either, in fact it would make me less free because everyone else would have that right, a large number of them would exercise it, and I would be less free for instance to knock at someone's door without worrying about getting shot through it or be at risk of someone at my place of work going postal.

Gun = Freedom is not an unquestionable rule.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1192
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #398 on: October 17, 2017, 06:14:24 AM »
The US revolution is a product of the Enlightenment and the right to property is an essential part.

Sure, I'm on board with that. But again, property itself constituted slaves which in and of itself contradicted the "all men are created equal" part as well. Jefferson and others, again while slave owners themselves, understood that including the slave trade in any documents would likely hinder their goal. It's unknown where "pursuit of happiness" actually originated from.

However, the right to own a gun doesn't fall under any unalienable rights. It falls under the 2nd amendment, which has restrictions, as it should. As others have pointed out, it's not ok for folks to own nukes and other WMDs.

This is all with the accepted understanding that we have some sort of "god given rights" which I don't believe to be true at all.
But that has nothing to do with this topic and I am not opening that can of worms.
Even if you are an atheist, I think you can still logically accept some type of "god' given rights. Just accepting that there is something else out there other than ourselves. Otherwise something is the 'right thing to do' because a majority of politicians says so, and a subsequent majority do not rescinding the law seems pretty silly; I don't get my morality from politicians, ever.

All rights are 'god given' it is just that laws are a recognition of those rights. We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9491
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #399 on: October 17, 2017, 07:48:33 AM »
We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I like the idea that you have a right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  But getting back to a question that I asked earlier on . . .  Do we have the right to defend ourselves from someone driving a vehicle that burns fossil fuels?  (Remember that thousands are killed by the emissions from these vehicles every year, and many more develop breathing problems from the pollution.)

If no, why not and how is this different from defending yourself from a mugger?

If yes, how would you recommend that someone defend themselves in this situation?